Saturday, May 28, 2016

But for the record, there is no reality where I could vote for someone who:
- Centered a presidential campaign around building a wall on the Mexican border
- Doesn’t believe human-caused climate change is real
- Wants to repeal Dodd Frank, effectively deregulating Wall Street
- Wants to dismantle the ACA, which has reduced the uninsured by 18 million, but has no alternate plan (replacing it with “something great” is not policy)
- Wants to impose steep tariffs which will only serve to hurt the working poor and middle class, while starting a trade war with China
- Wants to ban an entire religion from entering the US
- Is anti-abortion
- Believes in torture﻿

The Affordable Care Act, better known as ObamaCare, has received all the attention as the worst expression of the Obama presidency, but Dodd-Frank deserves a look. Just as ObamaCare was the wrong prescription for health care, Dodd-Frank was based on a faulty diagnosis of the financial crisis. Until that diagnosis is corrected—until it is made clear to the American people that the financial crisis was caused by the government rather than by deregulation or insufficient regulation—economic growth will be impeded. It follows that when the true causes of the financial crisis have been made clear, it will become possible to repeal Dodd-Frank.

This has happened before. During the 1930s, the dominant view was that the Depression was caused by excessive competition. It seems crackpot now, but the New Dealers thought that too much competition drove down prices, caused firms to fail, and thus increased unemployment. The Dodd-Frank of the time was the National Industrial Recovery Act. Although it was eventually overturned by the Supreme Court, its purpose was to cartelize industry and limit competition so that businesses could raise their prices. It was only in the 1960s, when Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz showed that the Depression was caused by the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy, that national policies began to move away from regulation and toward competition. What followed was a flood of deregulation—of trucking, air travel, securities, and communications, among others—which has given us the Internet, affordable air travel for families instead of just business, securities transactions at a penny a share, and Fedex. Ironically, however, the regulation of banking increased, accounting for the problems of the industry today.

If the American people come to recognize that the financial crisis was caused by the housing policies of their own government—rather than insufficient regulation or the inherent instability of the U.S. financial system—Dodd-Frank will be seen as an illegitimate response to the crisis. Only then will it be possible to repeal or substantially modify this repressive law.

The next point after that is simply incorrect, a temporary ban on Muslims in an effort to combat terrorism isn't the same as wanting to "to ban an entire religion from entering the US." Carter Agrees With Trump On Muslim Ban - Trump is a monster, a madman and a vile racist. He’s just like Hitler. Or Jimmy Carter.

During the Iranian hostage crisis, Carter issued a number of orders to put pressure on Iran. Among these, Iranians were banned from entering the United States unless they oppose the Shiite Islamist regime or had a medical emergency.:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WqiFoC5F58

In his article, Horgan rightly points out that today's so-called "science skeptics" are little more than dogmatic tribal cultists (my words, not Horgan's) who celebrate "skeptical" thinking concerning their selected philosophical targets while vehemently denying anyone's right to question their own beliefs on things like breast cancer screening, vaccine safety, global warming and genetically engineered foods.

As Horgan eloquently explains in his piece, real skeptics are skeptical of everything, not just selected topics that are targeted by the madness of status quo science crowds (i.e. the "cult of scientism").Real skepticism means questioning everything... especially the status quoA real skeptic, in other words, would bring critical thinking to all of our science narratives and cultural beliefs, including those that cover the origin of the universe (cosmology), the origin of the human species, the nature of consciousness, the long history of indigenous botanical medicine, the cancer industry and mammography, homeopathy, antidepressant drugs, water filters, the existence of God and everything else imaginable. But far too many of today's infamous "skeptics" (such as Richard Dawkins) are really just cultists who labor under the false banner of "science." And they're offensive to real critical thinkers, it turns out.

"I don’t hang out with people who self-identify as capital-S Skeptics. Or Atheists. Or Rationalists," explains Horgan. "When people like this get together, they become tribal. They pat each other on the back and tell each other how smart they are compared to those outside the tribe. But belonging to a tribe often makes you dumber."

I've seen this myself, on both ends of the medicine spectrum. I've seen insanely stupid pharmacology experts swear that statin drugs are such miraculous chemicals that they should be dripped into the public water supply. But I've also seen "raw foodies" at festivals swearing that their "water vortexer machines" could levitate water in defiance of the laws of gravity.

In both cases, my critical thinking alarms go haywire, and I shake my head in disbelief that so many people are so gullible, regardless of their level of academic education or technical mastery of certain subjects. A highly trained doctor with an IQ of 200 can be just as functionally stupid as a high school dropout, I've observed. In fact, when it comes to medicine and health, many so-called "experts" are so ignorant of reality that they almost seem cognitively retarded.http://www.naturalnews.com/054105_science_skeptics_Scientific_American_cult_of_scientism.html

Another layer to this cake is the strong likelihood that many of the leading 'Skeptics' are active (Government) disinformation propagandists, people like Michael Shermer, who ignore or obfuscate hard scientific evidence when it comes to high level corruption, such as with the September 11 attacks. Other issues related to science also come into play, such as hiding experimental evidence indicating the reality of ESP and the UFO phenomena.I suspect that the leading proponents are recruited because they have corrupt, or intelligence-linked, backgrounds.

Flashback — Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth founder Richard Gage, AIA, was invited to bring the evidence for the explosive demolition of the three World Trade Center towers to viewers of C-SPAN August 01, 2014, on its morning program Washington Journal. His 45-minute appearance is enabling researchers, academics and industry professionals looking into 9/11, along with their message, to reach a national television audience of millions.

Perhaps the most valuable information transmitted by Pepper in this keynote address is the story of infiltration of the National Conference for New Politics in 1967, a movement designed to challenge the political status quo with an anti-war, anti-poverty agenda. Pepper describes how agents provocateurs positioned themselves within the nascent party and pushed through highly questionable unacceptable resolutions designed to divide the participants. Pepper warns that the 9/11 skeptic community has undoubtedly already been infiltrated by agents bent on dividing, and not uniting.

Tuesday, May 10, 2016

The CIA Agent Larry Mitchell meeting Bin Laden is something I'm a bit Leary of. However, Summers and Swann(authors of The Eleventh Day) seem to believe it as well. They talked to the reporter who wrote the story for the French paper Le Figaro, then talked to the source of that reporter, and French Intelligence officials. They believe it happened. I'm not denying it. It's just hard for me to believe they would actually meet with him face to face rather than have the Saudis handle whatever business they were discussing.
Rogue Elements of US and Other International Intelligence Agencies Involved in 9/11?

"Just because the evidence suggests that rogue elements of US and other international intelligence agencies were involved doesn't mean bin Laden and Al-Qaeda hijackers weren't involved."

That statement from the top-post of this blog should be expanded to include rogue members of the US government, not just the intelligence apparatus, but I'll get there later in a very large post I have in the works. For now, I'd like to address the fact that I've recently seen "debunker" statements alleging that we have nothing to back up the first part of that statement as it currently exits, so here goes...

The CIA Admits Foreknowledge of 9/11, Blocks Investigations That Could Have Stopped 9/11, & Meets with Osama bin Laden

He’s been at the center of one of the enduring mysteries of 9/11: Why the CIA refused to share information with the FBI (or any other agency) about the arrival of at least two well-known Al-Qaeda operatives in the United States in 2000, even though the spy agency had been tracking them closely for years.

That the CIA did block him and Doug Miller, a fellow FBI agent assigned to the “Alec Station,” the cover name for CIA’s Osama bin Laden unit, from notifying bureau headquarters about the terrorists has been told before, most notably in a 2009 Nova documentary on PBS, “The Spy Factory.” Rossini and Miller related how they learned earlier from the CIA that one of the terrorists (and future hijacker), Khalid al-Mihdhar, had multi-entry visas on a Saudi passport to enter the United States. When Miller drafted a report for FBI headquarters, a CIA manager in the top-secret unit told him to hold off. Incredulous, Miller and Rossini had to back down. The station’s rules prohibited them from talking to anyone outside their top-secret group.

All these years later, Rossini still regrets complying with that command. If he had disobeyed the gag order, the nearly 3,000 Americans slaughtered on 9/11 would probably still be alive. “This is the pain that never escapes me, that haunts me each and every day of my life,” he wrote in the draft of a book he shared with me. “I feel like I failed, even though I know it was the system and the intelligence community on the whole that failed.”

CIA Admits Foreknowledge of 9-11- "We had very, very good intelligence of the general structure and strategies of the Al Qaeda terrorist organization. We knew and we warned that Al Qaeda was planning a major strike. There need be no question about that." - CIA Deputy Director James Pavitt

The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.

Author Richard Labeviere later wrote a book, where he said "a Gulf prince who presented himself as an adviser to the Emir of Bahrain" confirmed the meeting, which had been arranged by Prince Turki al-Faisal of Saudi Arabia.Confirmation? Maybe, but again we don't know the source, so there’s no way to determine its accuracy.

That being said, Labeviere did reveal some details about his sources, through whom he revealed very detailed information, including the name of the CIA station chief in question! A 2003 Reuters report states:

Labeviere said he learned of an encounter from a contact in the Dubai hospital, and said the event was confirmed in detail during a separate interview in New York with a Gulf prince who presented himself as an adviser to the Emir of Bahrain.

The prince, who the author met in a Manhattan hotel in November 2001, appeared very well-informed about the CIA-bin Laden meeting.

Labeviere said the second contact told him the face-to-face had been arranged by Prince Turki al-Faisal, the head of the Saudi General Intelligence Department...Labeviere named Larry Mitchell as the CIA station chief who met bin Laden, describing him as a colorful figure well-known on the Dubai social circuit.

French counterterrorism expert Antoine Sfeir says the story of this meeting has been verified and is not surprising: It "is nothing extraordinary. Bin Laden maintained contacts with the CIA up to 1998. These contacts have not ceased since bin Laden settled in Afghanistan. Up to the last moment, CIA agents hoped that bin Laden would return to the fold of the US, as was the case before 1989.

We also have reports of an Al Qaeda trainer who it turns out worked with the Green Berets, CIA, and FBI! "Triple Cross or Inside Job?"Counter-terrorism Operation Able Danger Identified Several of the 9/11 Terrorists a Year Before 9/11

The following excerpt from the Fox News article "Third Source Backs 'Able Danger' Claims About Atta" makes it clear that Atta was not identified by open source material alone:

J.D. Smith, a defense contractor who claims he worked on the technical side of the unit, code-named "Able Danger"... said data was gathered from a variety of sources, including about 30 or 40 individuals. He said they all had strong Middle Eastern connections and were paid for their information. Smith said Able Danger's photo of Atta was obtained from overseas.

An August 22, 2005 article on freerepublic.com explains that one of the reasons why the 9/11 Commission dismissed Able Danger is their timeline for Atta's arrival in the US was incorrect, having him arrive at least several months too early. However, the article notes that The Able Danger team could have "identified the cell overseas before they traveled to the US" or that the 9/11 Commission "got their timeline wrong."

Regarding the second possibility that the 9/11 Commission "got their timeline wrong," the freerepublic.com article notes that "it appears that all of the information that the Commission used to establish travel timelines for the Atta cell came from interrogations... of two co-conspirators with plenty of motivation to mislead American investigators." One of these co-conspirators, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, stated that he "gave a lot of false information" and "made up stories" due to torture inflicted by his CIA interrogators. Later it was revealed that Mohammed confessed to attacking a bank established only after his arrest.

These co-conspirators lying seems a far better possibility than the noted least plausible alternative summarized on the freerepublic.com article, that the Able Danger members "all lied, and went out of their way to lie to the Commission not once but several times, despite the Pentagon themselves... noting the 'respected' service of the two officers."

I endorse the NYC CAN campaign and support the need for a new, independent, investigation of the events and failures that lead up to the 9/11 attacks.

The original 9/11 Commission inquiry became an exercise in bureaucratic ass-covering and obfuscation of accountability.

I had no intention of joining the ranks of “whistle blowers”. In 2003, when I made my disclosure to the 9/11 commission regarding the existence of a pre 9/11 offensive counter-terrorism operation that had discovered several of the 9/11 terrorists a full year before the 9/11 attacks my intention was to simply tell the truth, and fulfill my oath of office.

Unfortunately, this was a minority view.

Instead of supporting the search for the truth, members of the Bush/Rumsfeld Department of Defense did everything within their power to destroy my 20 year career as a clandestine intelligence operative simply to try to discredit me and my disclosure.

In 2006 I testified before Congress on the pre-9/11 issues regarding the systemic failures I was personally aware of – in both open and closed sessions – and yet nothing was ever done to correct these problems.

The families and victims of the 9/11 attacks are owed a real accounting of why their government failed them. We all deserve answers.

The full accounting has never been made. This accounting is long overdue. I hope the NYC CAN effort will result in a real, detailed, independent investigation that will reveal the full truth – whatever that truth may be.

As noted on HistoryCommons.org, "Acquaintances in San Diego long suspect al-Bayoumi is a Saudi government spy reporting on the activities of Saudi-born college students." Furthermore, "Chairman of the 9/11 Congressional Inquiry Senator Bob Graham and his investigators will, in author Philip Shenon’s words, 'find it obvious that the amiable al-Bayoumi was a low-ranking Saudi intelligence agent.'"

Then as reported by Fox News on November 23rd, 2002, "Newsweek said... the FBI uncovered financial records showing payments to the family of al-Bayoumi from a Washington bank account held in the name of Princess Haifa Al-Faisal, wife of the Saudi ambassador to the United States and daughter of the late King Faisal."

The Senate Intelligence Committee wanted to interview the FBI informant, however, the report states that, "The Administration... would not agree to allow the FBI to serve a Committee subpoena and deposition notice on the informant." The Department of Justice/Office of Inspector General report notes that, "In July 2003, the asset was given a $100,000 payment and closed as an asset."

Dorman concludes:

This is important. This investigation was halted by the President. This treasonous act needs to be addressed. Instead of calling for a new investigation how about allowing this original one to continue? What reason is there for supporting the idea that our elected officials representing us have no right to talk to an informant housing people who murdered 3000 Americans? But it gets worse... If you are an American tax payer, you paid this informant $100,000 in order to not cooperate with this investigation. I would like a debunker to explain to me why they are OK with this.

Princess Haifa bint Faisal claimed she had no idea that the money was going to al-Bayoumi. The Princess' alibi was enough to satisfy the farcical 9/11 Commission and tug on the heartstrings of the gullible. According to her, the intended recipient of the cashier checks was Majeda Ibrahin Dweikat, a woman seeking monetary help to treat her thyroid condition. Majeda would receive the checks and then sign them over to al-Bayoumi's wife. So Majeda was the terrorist financier, not the poor, unsuspecting Princess Haifa or Prince Bandar.

The only problem is that Majeda's husband, Osama Basnan, was known to be a "vocal Al-Qaeda sympathizer" (no pagination). According to a law enforcement official, shortly after the 9/11 attacks, Basnan "celebrated the heroes of September 11" and referred to September 11 as a "wonderful, glorious day". Basnan is also known to have "met with a high Saudi prince who has responsibilities for intelligence matters and is known to bring suitcases full of cash into the United States". This all makes Princess Haifa and Prince Bandar's actions look less like charity and more like the financing of terror.

On October 9th 2001 the Times of India ran the headline "India helped FBI trace ISI-terrorist links." The article claimed that the head of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), General Mahmud Ahmed, had $100,000 wired to 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta through convicted terrorist Ahmad Umar Sheikh. The website 9/11myths.com has a variety of pages devoted to different aspects of this subject, trying to shed doubt on its validity, as well as downplay its significance if true.

Q: Dr. Rice?Ms RICE: Yes?Q: Are you aware of the reports at the time that the ISI chief was in Washington on September 11th, and on September 10th $100,000 was wired from Pakistan to these groups here in this area? And why was he here? Was he meeting with you or anybody in the Administration?Ms RICE: I have not seen that report, and he was certainly not meeting with me. (...)Although there is no official confirmation, in all likelihood General Mahmoud Ahmad met Dr. Rice during the course of his official visit.

This video has given me so many answers to questions I have been asking for 16 years. I was there on that day. I ran as the towers fell. I heard two explosions not long before the towers fell. I was told it was jet fuel exploding. I didn't believe it but the experience has haunted me for so long. It's only now I'm looking for answers. I lost my friend in the south tower. We were on working holidays from the uk. She was only 19 years old. I was meant to be there but felt sick and I'd be dead now if I had gone into work.﻿

There's a lot of evidence, so I'm not going to cite it all here. There are a series of photos with Mineta, Mary Matalin, Cheney and others that disproves his story. Here's a link to the 356 photos — Vice President Cheney on September 11, 2001—so that you can peruse them at leisure.

It would have been Unthinkable for the U.S. Military to down a civilian airliner without a clear order from the President, as commander - in - chief. In his absence, the authority belonged to the Secretary of Defense,Donald Rumsfeld...........The Vice President was not in the chain of command. Page 136

Something I'd been trying to point out well before this book was published. But the book is a more "legitimate" source than "Jimd3100".

In other words.....who cares what orders Cheney was giving? I've looked at the pics, but I don't spend time trying to analyze parts found at the pentagon, because a passenger jet hit it. Same with these pics, Cheney-Mineta-PEOC---it doesn't really matter. Barking at this tree IMO is a waste of time and effort.

I'm more interested in this tree:

Why is Cheney giving orders to the military?

The President was "out of the loop"? LOL! We all saw him reading my pet goat, when he and the rest of the world knew we were under attack. From there he went on Air Force One. .......

Air Force One is equipped with advanced secure communications equipment, allowing the aircraft to function as a mobile command center in the event of an attack on the United States.

You are correct that the military was finally given shoot down authority at 10:31. However that authority still had not been passed on to any pilots. The pilots are the ones who will shoot down planes. Military officers refused to pass that order on to the pilots because they did not want to go to prison, because...

The Vice President was not in the chain of command.

The pilots were not given authority to shoot down planes until well after 11:00.

Actually we can expect to be challenged on this. And would be found to be technically incorrect, because......

General Wherley was talking to a Secret Service agent who claimed to be speaking on behalf of Vice President Cheney. The guidance he passed to Wherley was to send up fighters with orders to take out any aircraft that threatened the White House or Capitol. Wherley translated this in military terms as "weapons free," meaning that the decision to shoot rested in the cockpit of the lead pilot. General Wherley passed this instruction to the pilots that launched at 10:42. Neither the president,the vice president, the secretary of defense, the NORAD commander, nor anyone at NEADS was aware that morning that the Andrews Air Force Base fighters were airborne outside the military chain of command, operating under different rules of engagement from the Langley fighters in the same airspace. page-230-231http://www.amazon.com/Ground-Truth-Untold-America-Attack/dp/1594488940/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260588203&sr=1-1

But this source still shows that a select few were given shoot down authority(still outside the chain of command)at 10:42. The only pilots that had the authority at that point.

The authorization was not passed to any of the pilots controlled by NEADS. Colonel Marr explained to the 9-11 Commission that he refused to pass it on because he was unsure of its ramifications. United 93 was confirmed crashed at 10:15, and there were no other targets by 10:32. Major Nasypany and Major Fox both told the commission staff that they did not pass the order to the pilots over New York or Washington because they were unsure how the pilots would, or should, act as a result. - Page 229http://www.amazon.com/Ground-Truth-Untold-America-Attack/dp/1594488940/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260588203&sr=1-1

So, really....the pilots were never authorized to shoot down planes. Except for the ones sent to protect the White House and Capital. But even then only at 10:42. When there were no targets, And it was an illegal order.

The Eleventh Day points out something else.......

The Vice President was not in the chain of command.

The Generals understood that. In an earlier exercise, one that postulated a suicide mission involving a

jet aimed at Washington, they had said shooting it down would require an "executive" order. Page 136

So this is simple enough. What was Bush's response when the 9-11 commission asked how did it come to be that he was not commander in chief when the nation needed it's commander in chief more than ever? How could they not ask that?

That's still classified.

What was Rumsfeld's response when asked why he was not giving orders?

That's still classified.

What is not classified is this horrible horrible answer.......

9-11 Commission:

"The President apparently spoke to Secretary Rumsfeld for the first time that morning shortly after 10:00. No one can recall the content of this conversation, but it was a brief call in which the subject of shootdown authority was not discussed. page 60/585

BTW-the reference for that sentence was D Rumsfeld's interview. Still classified.

So, these pictures, and the peoc timeline to me is like trying to identify plane parts at the pentagon. Why bother?

If you or me did what Rumsfeld or Bush did (desert their posts) we would have been court-martialed.

Charging anyone with perjury would open up an inconvenient(to say the least) "can of worms"

I'm suggesting removing the Cheney-Mineta-PEOC-Orders and replacing it with why is Cheney playing the role of Commander in chief?

However- it doesn't "prove" 9-11 was an "inside job". But if you want to be nice. It proves they are all liars, and lying about unbelievable extreme incompetence. When does that incompetence turn into evil? After lying to the public to "protect their incompetence" they continue lying to protect their crime partners(The Saudis)and then continue lying to commit mass murder by pointing a finger at Iraq, and claiming they are connected to Al Qaeda. At what point is the public going to do its job and start holding their Government Accountable? And is the "truth movement" ever going to acknowledge that Islamic Extremism plays a large part in this mess?